Full Version: glary utilities
Any reason/logic why Glary utilities find`s much more temp files to clean up than Ccleaner?(no offence)
It's looking in different places?!
QUOTE (marmite @ Nov 20 2009, 09:30 AM) 
It's looking in different places?!
This is what it looks for:
So it's looking across the entire volume based on a wide range of file extensions then?
Whereas ccleaner looks for a narrower (I presume) more targeted range of files in predefined locations, both generic and application-based.
I can understand why this would return more files than ccleaner - it's a far more broad brush approach. There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.
Whereas ccleaner looks for a narrower (I presume) more targeted range of files in predefined locations, both generic and application-based.
I can understand why this would return more files than ccleaner - it's a far more broad brush approach. There are advantages and disadvantages with both approaches.
Glarys has a higher chance of false positives than ccleaner.
While it may find more invalid entries it may also incorrectly identify valid entries.
Where as the above users have said, CCleaner takes a safer approach, with few false positives reported on the forums.
While it may find more invalid entries it may also incorrectly identify valid entries.
Where as the above users have said, CCleaner takes a safer approach, with few false positives reported on the forums.
QUOTE (fireryone @ Nov 20 2009, 01:19 PM)
Glarys has a higher chance of false positives than ccleaner.
While it may find more invalid entries it may also incorrectly identify valid entries.
Where as the above users have said, CCleaner takes a safer approach, with few false positives reported on the forums.
While it may find more invalid entries it may also incorrectly identify valid entries.
Where as the above users have said, CCleaner takes a safer approach, with few false positives reported on the forums.
They have a back up option for the temps cleanning in case that something goes wrong.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.